Early Saturday evening, the call rang out through Twitter and text message: Turn on CBS. Georgia had erased Auburn's 20-point lead and clung to a one-point edge with less than a minute to go. Auburn quarterback Nick Marshall faced fourth-and-18 from his own 27-yard line.

Marshall launched a soaring pass. Into double coverage. It bounced off a Georgia defender and floated like a diamond ring above a drain, then landed in the hands of Auburn receiver Ricardo Louis, who strode into the end zone. The Tigers went on to win, 43-38, as Georgia coaches collapsed onto the field in agony.

The Tigers, picked fifth in their own division before the season but No. 6 nationally after Saturday, ride into their annual Iron Bowl grudge match against top-ranked Alabama on Nov. 30 with a Southeastern Conference title-game berth on the line, and maybe more. (Auburn will be at home, by the way.)

But lost amid Saturday's bedlam was a strange-but-true fact born just eight days earlier: Marshall and Louis are suing the NCAA. So is Aaron Murray, Georgia's quarterback.

In fact, every top-division football player you saw on Saturday—and even those you didn't see—is suing college sports' governing body. They're part of a newly certified class-action lawsuit that seeks certain slices of college-sports revenues, the biggest of which is broadcast-rights contracts. Before long, the players who stop viewers' hearts with their play soon might receive a portion of the millions those broadcasts generate.

It all happened so quietly, barely a ripple in the news, that many players don't know they are involved in a lawsuit. "None of the players in our locker room talked about it," Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter said last week.

Colter is active in a nonprofit group called the National College Players Association, which advocates for players on issues such as long-term health care and guaranteed four-year scholarships rather than the current one-year renewable ones. The NCPA is the closest thing that college players have to a union, but it lacks the authority to negotiate like pro-sports unions do on such matters as TV revenue.

Colter isn't looking for NFL-type cash payments, but rather an account funded by TV and licensing revenues that players could access when they need it most: after college.

"Obviously football, basketball, it's been turned into a huge business and it brings in a lot of money to the NCAA and to these institutions," Colter said. "It's only right to help out, really, the employees who are bringing in this money."

The class action could make Colter's hopes a reality. In 2009, former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon started the suit because he thought it unfair that the NCAA could license his image for a videogame or sell broadcast rights to games he played in while prohibiting him from receiving any proceeds.

On Nov. 8, a federal judge declared the case a class action, meaning that all Division I men's basketball players and bowl-subdivision football players are suing the NCAA unless they opt out.

The players can't recover funds already lost, the judge ruled, so O'Bannon himself won't receive any windfalls under the class action. But a successful suit could force the NCAA to change the way it does business and cut players in on burgeoning TV-rights deals. (The plaintiffs aren't seeking any athletic-ticket or donation funds, which currently make up most athletic revenues at most schools.)

How much money are we talking about? The Pac-12 Conference has a 12-year, $3 billion broadcast-rights contract with ESPN and Fox. The NCAA has a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal with CBS and Turner Broadcasting to air the NCAA men's basketball tournament. Those are just two examples.

The plaintiffs had been seeking 50% of those kinds of contracts. But the judge's ruling that players could only seek changes going forward means that the portion could change under a settlement agreement or in the wake of a plaintiffs' victory.

NCAA rules limit college-player compensation almost entirely to athletic scholarships. But even NCAA president Mark Emmert acknowledges that those scholarships fall short of covering the full expense of attending college. That means that some stars of Saturday's spectacles—such as Southern California's upset of Stanford—will end their college careers in debt.

A trial in the class-action case is scheduled for June. But plaintiffs' lawyers on Friday moved for a summary judgment, which asks the judge to render a decision based on the facts already at hand. So a ruling could come even sooner.

Without taking sides in the debate, I just wish every column of this nature would point out (i) most university athletic departments lose money; (ii) the football and basketball revenue makes all the other sports that lose money possible -- that means a lot of scholarships for student-athletes in sports where there is no pro future; and (iii) that last category includes all the women's sports and corresponding opportunities mandated by Title IX.

So if the players win and the universities have to share the money, the real losers will be the true student athletes in the non-revenue sports.

With my scholarship, I got tuition, books, fees and $100/month. If I did not meet a certain GPA, I got to pay it back as well as give Uncle Sam some of my time at Lackland with a follow-on job as a no-striper...I sure would have liked the athletic scholarship deals.

If the NBA and NFL want to use the college system as their farm system, then perhaps they should pay the colleges. Also, how many of these athletes actually make it in the pros and then once they get into the pros last long? The education is much more valuable to a larger percentage of the college athletes. To start off your career and adult life with no debts and a college degree is a huge "leg-up" over most in the USA.

First, not all student athelets get full rides. Many get tuition +, some get book, some get zilch. Every year there is a tearjerker story about the student athelete,"walk on" who is happy to get a partial scholarship his senior year.

Lets go back to the good old days of college sports, say 1939 when freshman football players struck at Pitt because they did not get paid as much as senior players.

Lets make this easy. if Joe Football wants $25,000 cash and the other wants tuition + room and board let them choose.

It silly to look the other way as Johnny football signs autographs sold for thousands, and then throw out a small college volleyball player for taking a $25.00 trophy for a church summer league.

Its about money, always about money. Schools and leagues want it all.

At least have NCAA lose perpetual rights to a college player name, and likeness. Its not right that say Archie Griffins name and likeness can be used in a video game owned by NCAA with no compensation.

The real culprits in this tale are of two types: (1) the broadcast networks (Disney, CBS, NBC, Fox, TBS, etc.) who promote the idea of college TV broadcasts, playoffs, tournaments, bowl games, etc., all to sell ad time and make their shareholders money and (2) the professional leagues (NFL and NBA) who use the college leagues as their developmental, instructional leagues, their minor leagues, without incurring any material cost all to enrich their team owners' bank accounts. Notice how no one is clamoring for college baseball players to be paid!

There are polar opposite views on this issue of paying college athletes.Those focused on the student part of student-athlete who abhor the notion and those who view the athletes as having earning capacity being captured by others who believe it only proper to let the talent receive the revenue. The solution seems rather simple: Find a way (maybe not so easy) to force the NFL and the NBA to create their own minor leagues where they could pay players -- then these athletes could make the choice to play in the minors or get an education. And colleges would be forced to live with the talent that comes their way and get off the money trail.

Hard to know how to make this happen, but my sense is it would solve lots of problems -- and expose for what they are those college programs that actually "use" their students for profit. And the "fans" all too happy to take advantage of that situation for their own enjoyment. And mainly expose the hypocrisy of the professional leagues in basketball and football.

What ever happened to the notionof STUDENT athletes? These young men and women (and their parents or guardians) made the decision to play college sports and receive a full scholarship for a four (or 5-6) year college education. It is their choice; they could otherwise choose to not go to college, or not play a sport and pay tuition just like the majority of students.

I like some of the comments above...tax the most profitable sports to help offset the rising tuition costs and lower state subsidies. Let's be clear...these athletes are already being paid; many receive a free education as well as free clothes and food. If certain studet athletes truly need financial support due to their family situation, then they can apply for need-based financial aid just like everyone else.

The proponents of giving college athletes more benefits always forget that the vast majority of sports teams and athletes are net losers for their universities. Those TV revenue figures look big but once they are dividing between all of the participating schools and then again to all of the sports teams, nearly all universities end up losing money.

The four year guaranteed scholarship is also absurd. Does that mean that an athlete can quit the team halfway through their first year and still receive free tuition for the next three and a half years?

All the conference-shifting over the past decade or so has exposed college sports for the money grab that it is. However, players seeking 50% of the revenues are effectively asking to turn it into a pro league. Pro salary caps usually allow something like 55% for player salaries, not too much more than the plaintiff demands. I understand the game, where the plaintiff always sues for the moon in the American justice system. But if they got their way, one would have to wonder how much of an interest there would be among colleges in running pro sports teams. Already, the ones outside the big conferences aren't really killing it. And even in the big conferences, entire athletic departments barely break even. The unintended (or intended) consequence of a big plaintiff win will be the downsizing of college athletics as a whole, and the elimination of thousands of scholarships in the money-losing sports. With Title IX still in force, men's sports outside football and basketball stand to be eliminated completely.

I think a more sensible thing than sharing broadcast and ticket revenue would be to guarantee scholarships for four years, let the players share in certain licensing from their names and images, and if Johnny Football wants to sign some autographs for money, let him.

Right on! Time to stop taking advantage of these kids by giving them $200,000 worth of education for doing something they enjoy doing! How about we give them the cut of the revenue they want, and make them pay for college?

That's all well and good, but the problem is that professional sports (basketball & football) don't allow 18 year old athletes to turn pro anymore. Why wouldn't a very talented very poor athlete (who may detest school) just go to an American college and sue the NCAA or take a large sum of money from sports agents with 0 legal repercussions for the individual, rather than playing abroad for a year waiting to be eligible? (The Reggie Bush Model)

Exactly, they are ALREADY paid $20k to $30k **annually** for their scholarship, room, board, etc. And that is at State schools. What a tremendous blessing that is and has been for hundreds of thousands of athletes.

This lawsuit is just another big money grab by unethical and unscrupulous lawyers.

Not all of them enjoy doing it and even if they do, the time commitment is HUGE. there are numerous books on this subject. Rick Telander, a former D Back @ Nortwestern and SI writer refused to cover college football anymore but wrote a great book many years ago. My suggestion would be to read on this. a tough subject but i fall more and more on the side that these guys are being taken advantage of. The video games particularly were the straw that broke the camel's back.

THe players who do not want to be student athletes simply bypass the NCAA institutions and their rules. Let them form a developmental football league on their own dime, or ge the NFL to fund it. Depite its position as a de facto pipeline to the NFL there is no connection between the NFl and the NCAA. There's also no rule in the NFL that says players have to have played college ball.

The only thing keeping playerrs from skipping college and the NCAA rules--like they do in baseball--is the NFL and NBA draft rules. The NCAA has nothing to do with that.

Don't like the terms of the scholarship deal? Don't sign the LOI. Go play semi-pro ball. Go play Div III ball and pay your own way through school,

"There are over one-thousand football teams in the United States that refer to themselves as semi-pro, minor league, professional development, senior amateur, or adult amateur in over sixty different leagues. These football players usually have played high-school or college ball, and they want to continue competing after their eligibility has been exhausted. The vast majority of these players do not get paid to play ... they truly compete for the love of the game. This involves the players purchasing their own equipment and usually paying for their own transportation/lodging to/from games. This site is dedicated to these players whose participation and dedication allows this overlooked level of football to exist in the United States. [http://www.semiprofootball.org/]

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.